How DNC rigged the election process to coronate Hillary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thewap, Feb 28, 2016.

  1. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #1
    It is about the debates according to Ben Swann. Limited to 6, (in 2008 there were 20) no candidate is allowed to debate in non-sanctioned debates or face expulsion from the official debates.

     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I doubt it really makes much difference - especially with social media.
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    We have plenty of low information voters
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Who won't watch the debates regardless of how many there are.
     
  5. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #5
    The DNC bought all the Super Delegates already. Hilary could skip all the debates and she would still win the nomination.

    Rigged from Day 1 - and I'm sure there were many future fortunes made with the promises that will be cached in later.

    Sort of like the Clinton appointees who made millions while the country stumbled in the subprime loan fiasco... It's how they roll.
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    The super delegates can switch sides...
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    I don't actually recall the part in the Constitution that says that major political party Presidential candidates have to have X number of debates. In fact, the Constitution is remarkably silent on the topic of political parties in general, and televised debates in particular.

    Granted: Public debates have a place in US political history. The Lincoln-Douglass debates. JFK and Richard Nixon's televised showdown.


    But just because some amount of live public debate is worthwhile, it doesn't follow that more is better. And I would point you to the most recent CNN Republican debate for a perfect example.

    The reality is that the televised Presidential debates have little to no relationship to the traditional "Oxford" form of debate. Where participants are asked to take a position on an issue and present arguments in support. Instead, for the most part, they take the form of live group press conferences, where participants are graded on how gracefully/artfully/slimily they don't answer the canned questions; and usually degenerate into shouting matches. The "debates" between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were somewhat more civilized than the Republican slopfests. But they didn't really tell us that much about either candidate that we didn't already know.
     
  8. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #8
    This is just nonsense. Many of the SDs are elected officials. Their convention votes are not bound to anyone and they can vote for anyone of their choosing. Most importantly, the idea of the SDs overruling the will of the primary voters is ludicrous. If Sanders comes into the convention with the most primary-won, pledged delegates it would be very, very difficult for the SDs to deny him the nomination. They would be inviting an insurrection within the party by doing so. In reality, the SDs only come into play if the two candidates arrive at the convention in a virtual tie of primary-won, pledged delegates.
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    This is true. Though while they're not doing anything illegal, or *gasp* unconstitutional, it does seem that the DNC is taking the absolute minimum amount of effort necessary concerning the debates.

    While the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail on TV, we've barely seen anything of the Democrats. At a casual glance, it does seem that the party is trying to coast Hillary on through without wanting to risk anything that could potentially damage her reputation.
     
  10. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #10
    Slopfest is about right. The "spinfest" attempt in a tweet from Reince Priebus (RNC chair) after the GOP's South Carolina event was 180 degrees!

    "Our well-qualified & experienced candidates continue to put forth serious solutions to restore prosperity & strength to America"

    I don't often resort to mailing friends stuff like ROFLMFAO but I made an exception for that one.

    As for whether things are rigged: the Democrats seem to have a well oiled machine for the top slot this year but their bench does not seem deep. I am not fond of this machine because it hails from the 90s. Meanwhile on local levels gerrymandering does absolutely nothing for bench development. The incumbent wins and the opposition, if any, is ill funded, if at all. The Republicans are better at this game than the Democrats if you ask me. At least they put up a candidate in a Dem district. The Dems should have wised up in 2000 when they lost the WH and they should have refocused on bottom-up. But the money poured in at the top stayed near the top for Dems in successive elections.

    So here we are with a Clinton again, a Sanders, an already bowed-out O'Malley and a ghostly Biden. That's it?

    We laughed at the overloaded initial Republican field and talked about how it represented factionalism, fracture, implosion, blah blah blah. Cue Trump from the vocal minority and an incredulous (and lazy) media. There have been some notes of excitement as Rubio got endorsements from a string of Senate colleagues and an important one from Nikki Haley.

    But on the Dem side, the enthusiasm for Clinton from her left, as Sanders begins to hit the tougher contests, is at best a work in progress and not a harbinger of great turnout for November. You'd think by now the Dems would be talking up possible VP candidates, getting them some play in the press, and kind of showing off their options, but the spotlight is still on Clinton herself which in my opinion weakens rather than strengthens the appeal of the Dem ticket for the fall, since she is such a lightning rod for attacks from the right.

    I mean she's not running against three other candidates in the primary, she's running against "that socialist", basically, from the viewpoint of Dem primary voters, although of course that is not how she puts it. Both she and Sanders have been trying to steer clear of giving the GOP negative soundbites about each other to put in the can for the fall campaigns. She and the DNC should be moving it out to the fall lookahead and talking about "my great friend in Ohio, Sherrod Brown..." or etc. Unless all her great friends in the swing states have privately made it clear they're in the wait and see category, which hardly seems realistic.
     
  11. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #11
    "coronate" is such un ugly word. Why not use "crown"? These are candidates for President, not birds or flowers
     
  12. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #12
    Queen Clinton of the corrupt banking industry. A good fight would be Elizabeth Warren against the Clinton corruption machine..
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13


    One of the great failures of the national Democratic Party (and this goes back many years, if not even decades) is to answer the question: What does it mean to be a Democrat?

    By failing to present a clear and consistent message about what a "Democratic" identity is; they have allowed the Republicans; and the great right-wing propaganda machine (from talk radio shouters to Fox' talking heads) to do it for them: And so Democrats are seen as terrorist supporters; socialists who would consign us all to the Gulag; gun-grabbers who would disarm American hunters; military naifs who would pursue unilateral disarmament; etc. etc. All lies, of course. But where does the man or woman in the street, or on the 'net, go to find an alternative vision?

    I had hopes that Obama's Organizing for America would fill this void. And they have to a small extent. But will this survive Obama's departure from the White House?

    One would wish that someone within the Democratic Party apparatus would use a tiny fraction of the unlimited SuperPAC money sloshing around to create a campaign that tells people what being a Democrat means. What the Democratic Party stands for: the belief in racial equality; in the concept of a fair day's wage for a fair day's labor; for the absolute necessity of private enterprise; for respect for American's right to freedom of religion. Respect for America's heritage of legal gun ownership.

    Why can't the Democrats produce a series of 30-second or 1 minute ads showing real people, explaining why you can be a successful businessperson and a Democrat. A military veteran talking about Obama's VA reforms. A hunter and sportsman. A professional athlete. A single parent. A Roman Catholic priest. A physician talking about her experience with the Affordable Care Act. A finance professional talking about the impact of Dodd-Frank.

    Being a Democrat doesn't mean every Democrat has to agree on every issue. But it has to mean something other than what they are allowing the Republicans to say it does.
     
  14. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #14
    You should mail that to Wasserman Schultz. Or maybe you've already done it!

    Those would be great ads. Just ordinary people, not pols competing for a vote and expecting to do business as usual after the elections. I always figured if you took some working mom off one of the hills around here and had her talk about what it was like to serve in a military long on corporate subsidies and short on military family benefit, and what it's like now to work two jobs both of which are 25 miles away in a 20-year-old car, in different directions from her ad hoc day care arrangement... she could bury the average economic proposal of the GOP inside of 60 seconds. Forty-five seconds if you take out the well-deployed expletives.
     
  15. thewap thread starter macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #15
    Superpacs are a conflict of interest to the interest of the people.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    I think half the issue is that on both sides the presidential candidates are ****.
     
  17. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    How could that not become a part of the possible outcomes of extremely polarized "debate" --or what passes for that in the crossfire of partisan media outlets-- for lo these many years?

    It's an increasing rarity now for someone to be willing to get out there for a starring role in political target practice. The pay is not great compared to private sector and one's family and private life take a beating in office as well as in on-the-trail hardships. Maybe back in the day there was more intrinsic reward in just having made a run for high office. I can't think that's true now, and the downside now must seem just appalling.

    The trick is how to turn this around. At least during the debates, the media's moderators seem to try to take a respectful tone towards each candidate, but one can't say the same for the candidates themselves regarding each other, much less the spinmeisters and operatives. Past the debates, the media engage in too much clickbaiting and not enough vetting of platforms. So the whole campaign in between debates tends to degenerate into mudslinging for the sake of gaining eyeballs, not necessarily votes.

    A turnaround that draws better candidates must have something to do with paying more attention to mid level political offices and activities in the off seasons. Policy over personalities can actually do wonders for growing the respect of citizens for elected officials.

    I'll take an example of a Congressman from my own state (and district) who's a Republican but is admired on both sides of the aisle, Chris Gibson of New York. He's done it by just showing up at myriad local events and public forum panels, sorting out issues with a nonpartisan or bipartisan flavor to work on, working on them, collaborating with others in the House. Stuff like Lyme disease, addiction, veterans affairs...

    You don't hear Gibson's name bandied around with a bunch of pejorative adjectives in front, although it's possible he's not viewed as "conservative enough" on the far right in the House. The district leans Republican but has gone Democratic occasionally. No matter to him... he's disavowed running for a third term and is mulling a run for Governor in 2018. Still, his way through primaries from others in the GOP is not clear.

    There's a Tea Party type mini-Trump-like guy, Carl Paladino (an endorser of Trump, natch), who's thinking of trying again for NY governor. His first campaign was pretty controversial with some major gaffes (some emailed racist and sexually explicit jokes surfaced; remarks about gays, religion, hassles with media, etc). Eventually Cuomo beat him 63-33%. Apparently this taught Paladino... nothing? If the governor's race were in 2016 maybe he'd have Trump coattails but 2018 could be a different story. Somehow I cannot imagine Paladino coming off very well against Gibson, who aside from his Congressional terms is a retired Army colonel with service in Iraq, Kosovo, Haiti... and has taught American politics at West Point.

    Another worthy candidate: a rising Democratic aspirant to public office in New York, Zephyr Teachout, an anti-trust and media expert (and an associate professor of law at Fordham) will run for Gibson's Congressional seat this year. She managed to give Andrew Cuomo a scare when she primaried him for the governor's race last time out, and unexpectedly won 30 counties. Woke him right up...

    I'm sure these are not isolated anecdotes of worthy candidates. There are plenty of decent candidates for higher office out there at state levels. They need to be brought along and promoted by their party when they perform well, and defended publicly by their respective parties against the insanities of talk radio and cable talk show eyeball baiting, so that a governorship or presidential run doesn't seem preposterous either to them or to their potential electorate.

    I've posted before that I don't think the Democrats do as much to bring their bench along. I hope the Dems don't cement my suspicion along those lines this fall. I expect them to back Zephyr Teachout big time for that Congressional seat. It would be really nice to have a Democrat atop the district again. The last one we had (Gillibrand) became a Senator and since then it seems to have been a slog trying to get a truly meritorious Democrat onto the ballot. Sean Eldridge (of fame mostly for being married to Chris Hughes) tried to get the seat last time but Gibson beat him more than handily, and deserved to do so on the merits of his performance in office.
     
  18. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #18
    Pretty much this:

    (DNC Chair) Debbie Wasserman Schultz was irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of this primary contest. To think she kneecaped Sanders would assume that she’s competent at something. And she’s not. If anything, she was inadvertently one of Sanders’ biggest allies. By burying the debates and hiding Clinton, she allowed Clinton’s foes to set the terms of the debate. Remember, Clinton’s high-water marks last year were the week of the first debate and Benghazi hearings. The longer she was out of the public eye, the worse her primary numbers became. So I’m genuinely amazed at how DWS has achieved boogeyman status. She’s a joke, and yet people are acting like she’s a kingmaker. She’s too pathetic to be that!​
     

Share This Page